Employment is at the will of the employer...hence the law provides for an employer to terminate an employee with notice or pay-in-lieu of notic and without giving any reason. A claim for wrongful dismissal is simply alleging that no notice was give. Hence, the complaining employee, if successful would only be paid notice + severance. If paid that, then there is no need to go to court.

The more that I read, if true, makes me wonder about the professionalism of Grant Thornton.

Who should be held responsible?

I would say the payment of the bonus is a non-issue unless it can be shown that it was improperly paid. Notice that I do not use the word "illegal" which is a criminal term. As this is an employment issue, an improper payment would only occur if the employment contract either did not permit the payment of bonuses or did not permit the amount of bonus to be paid. I say it's a non-issue because whether or not he was entitled to a bonus goes to what is contained in the employment contract; and, as he didn't employ himself, then the "employer", i.e. the National Insurance Board would have negotiated with him and agreed to pay him a bonus.

So, despite all the sound and fury, and allegations of every sort, Mr. Cargill is actually fired for "breach of confidentiality" based on his affidavit and not for misfeasance in performing his job? Hmmmm...

@Wave. A Coroner's Jury is only able to return a verdict of lawful or unlawful killing. Remember that the Coronor's Court is not a criminal court, hence the types of verdicts returned would not be the same as in a criminal court. The fact that they have a different scope than a criminal court does not mean that this country is a Banana Republic. The process is set out in the Coroner's Act which may be accessed at lawsofthebahamasonline.
The Coroner now has the duty to refer the matter to the criminal authorities for further action. In this case, that would be the Attorney-General who then has to decide whether to institute criminal proceedings against the persons that the Coroner's jury conclude as being responsible for the death, and to decide whether the charge for this homicide will be murder or manslaughter. If criminal charges are brought, the case will then be heard in the Supreme Court by a judge and a jury. Ultimately, whether the persons charged are convicted becomes a matter for the criminal jury which may, even on a charge of murder, return a verdict of not guilty of murder, or guilty or not guilty of manslaughter.

And yadda, yadda, yadda to you as well...and because it's you I know those two children you raised (hopefully as a married person and not by yourself...and if you're a woman for the same man) are a credit to you...neither having premarital sex or any illegitimate children. Since you missed the point, we will both continue merrily along. (whistling as I twirl).

Read your comment again. In my view you took a very self righteous position by saying "and now these two want to give advice". What I got from your comment is that somehow this mourning family deserved what they got because they had unprotected underaged sex which resulted in a teeenage pregnancy and a 30 something year old grandmother. As a people we have an unhealthy obsession with judging people on their sexual habits and determining their worth and value.
Why is it these people's responsiblity to advocate against underage or unprotected sex in this situation? Why are they any less worth listening to if they don't promote the message that you want? Don't horrible things like this happen to people who are not underaged? With respect to "underage sex", I remind that the age of consent is purely a modern legal construct. 40 years ago there was nothing illegal or wrong for a 15 year old to have consensual sex. My grandmother and many grandmothers in this country were mothers at 15 years old, and were born to mothers who were likewise "underage". Not all of them were married either.(Gasp!) I'm not saying that that means it was either right or wrong, it was just the way of our society at the time. But I take the position that age does not make one a better or worse parent. My grandmother raised14 children who were a credit to her. She ws actually 13 when she married.
I say rather than casting around to take the mote out of these people's sorrow-filled eyes, you cast about and take the beam out of yours. In other words, be the change you want to see in this country...make sure that you are not having unprotected sex with someone who is not your spouse, (having never had sex at all until you get married) and that each child you bring into this world do not have multiple fathers or mothers, remain virgins until marriage, never make any mistakes, do not lie, cheat, steal, covet, or gossip. For now, if you are not married, please keep your chastity belt on and a bridle on your mouth (keyboard). I'll say to you like my mama taught me, "'til you dead, you ain't past nothing."

If I'm not mistaken, the mother is presently 18 years old, which means that she would have gotten pregnant at the age of 15. The legal age of consent is 16 years old. Generally, complaints of unlawful sexual intercourse would not be made unless it was "stranger" rape.Notwithstanding the age of the mother, you can't have charges unless someone complains, i.e. in every criminal case, there has to be a person known as a "virtual complainant", particularly in sexual offences cases. The "victim" has to testify to the sexual intercourse or accuse the individual.
@concerned citizen...How's the air up there? If we accept that we were all conceived in iniquity and are estranged from our Creator, then we must also accept that we are imperfect, prone to mistakes, and will not always do what is righteous. Remember that even the thief on the cross recognized that he was wrong and sought forgiveness. So why can't these people express regret and sorrow? We all live and learn from our mistakes.

Poor baby...R.I.P Little Angel! (tears)